Hi,
On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 9:08 AM Adrien Destugues <pulkomandy@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Le 16 mars 2019 15:59:21 GMT+01:00, Dario Casalinuovo <
b.vitruvio@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 8:47 AM Humdinger <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
So, Barrett, after years of people criticising your lack ofcommunication when it comes to your contributions,
So, as said I don't think I did all that different than what for
example
Axel did with launch daemon,
and the codec kit isn't all that revolutionary after all compared to
it.
The difference here is that he
discussed about that at begeistert and that there was the possibility
of
having personal branches.
This is another problem, this is a problem of management on admin side.
There never were personal branches on Haiku servers since we switched to
git. People usually just use github for that.
* Finally, in another situation sometimes someone come from nothing and
begin speaking about stuff that didn't even have reviewed correctly,
I'm
not going to accept lessons from someone who didn't respect or consider
my
ideas in the first place. There's also an example of that in this
topic.
As I already mentionned, systematic code review is a great tool for that.
It is an opportunity for you to document your changes.
I can take the example of the metadata handling in Media Kit. Several
developers have suggested the use of BMessage for that, for consistency
with other parts of the API (it would be one less class to worry about for
the people using the API).
I think you did not want to admit this point of view.
In general, what I take is that you want to make things better, but by
doing so, you are ready to lose the consistency, which I, personally, value
a lot and am ready to compromise other things for.
I think this is one of the keys to the Haiku spirit. It does not make your
changes wrong, but I see them somewhat not fitting with Haiku as a whole.
These things we can discuss at length, if we manage to both keep calm and
not lose our nerves. But it takes code review and presence on the mailing
list.
Even with the development plan you outlined, it still seems you would
prefer to work in "code drop" style: submit us a complete implementation,
docs, etc, of your own design.
I believe the way things are done in Haiku deserves more concertation and
discussions. Yes, that means we are much slower, but this is how we can
keep running the project without any leader. The choice of giving even
opportunities to everyone to raise their voices has a cost and I'm willing
to pay it because I think it pays in the long term.
As you see, my arguments are not so much on the technical side here, I
just think your way of working does not match with how I see Haiku and how
I think it should run. I don't think it is something that can be fixed.
There will always be frictions resulting in wear on either side.
The question is, since Adrien seems to like a lot gerrit and code
reviews,
why don't him use gerrit for that? And why he doesn't push to actually
have
webkit commits routed to haiku-commits for proper review? I'm pretty
sure
it'd be an excessively annoying thing for him as it's already a
difficult
area to develop without people questioning.
"when in rome, do as the romans do".
I work on WebKit, I use the rules of the WebKit project. I asked them if
they were interested in upstreaming our port, and they said not until we
give up on WebKitLegacy. It looks like one of our GSoC applicants is
finally taking care of this, so we may start to upstream code again. And it
will of course go through WebKit's review process, and any dev who
contributed to WebKit can tell you how much more annoying than ours it is.
find some direct commits now and then) changes I make to Haiku go through
Gerrit, and that I push other people to use it more as well. Some of them
think it should not be mandatory, but I'll keep encouraging them to use it
more (and try to not be to annoying in doing that).
So, we are all good at predicating things that we don't follow in the
first
place. Adrien is good without reviews, we don't have any idea of what
he is
doing, and he rarely explains us what are his plans. Now, again, this
is
not a critic to him, but do you see the parallel?
I'm not doing much. 99% of my work on webkit is merging upstream changes
and making sure the code still builds. And it does not take an expert eye
to see that the result is an extremely unstable browser that's unpleasant
to use.
Suppose that if I'm forced to go through gerrit, also Adrien should be
too,
what happens? Let's see if there is justice and equity in this
community.
I'm fine with mandatory Gerrit for every change.
Nonetheless I have to say that someone finally acknowledged that it's
really painful to use the gerrit review for the kind of work I'm doing.
I will mention again that it is a way to have other people read and
understand your work. If you do not go through this, how are we going to
understand your code?
I'm pretty sure that, for example Vidrep, which follow my work with a
lot
of interest already knew what were my plans. I had long discussions
with
him about my plans that were in the public channel.
Also, people please stop saying that I bypass reviews, until a year ago
or
so, reviews where done only in the mailing list, and that's where those
are
supposed to happen.
Post commit reviews result in more frictions, because it is annoying to go
back to already commited code. Gerrit encourages me to push work in
progress changes for early review, and more efficiently collaborate on
things. I see it as a way to use other people brains to improve the design
and clarity of the code. I can see that not everyone agrees with this, but
I don't see how you can complain that people don't understand what you do
if you are not willing to get through this.
You want to keep being a member of the project and fight for it;
putting us and foremost yourself through this ordeal.
Let's put it this way: I've been illegally removed from virtually any
thing
in the project, I'm no more part of the Haiku organization anymore, I
have
been banned from #haiku-dev, my keys have been revoked, and that
happened
in just 33 hours. From the (private) comments I received, people indeed
recognized it as an injustice and a partial decision.
Not only private. I have stated multiple times in public channels that
this way of handling things is completely unappropriate.
Before think about removing this illegal situation and restore
everything
how it should be.
I agree, however your mass revert on Gerrit does not help your case. Can
we now trust you to not do ill-intended changes to the git repository?
On my side, I started this topic because at this point I have concluded
that collaboration with you in Haiku is physically affecting me. That's
unfortunate, I think it is nothing personal and maybe we could try to
collaborate in different settings.
I am annoyed (and it's not the first time) by Kallisti5's "move fast and
break things" approach to this. It's abuse of sysadmin powers and that's
not acceptable. I hereby consider him warned about this and hope it won't
happen again. It does not help that we never wrote down the rules for this
in an easily reachable place.
It isn't even clear for everyone what a "ban" is. Does it include removing
one from the whole community? Removal of commit access? On voting right for
project decisions? I don't know, I think indeed a complete ban is an
extreme mesure so we have to strongly agree it is the right thing to do,
but on the other hand, at this point, would a compromise solution work? Can
there be trust?
I agree with Humdinger. Independant of our issues on working together, I'd
say we all want Haiku (or let's say, some BeOS inspired project, whatever
it is) to succeed? So, why threaten for more roadblocks on the way to that?
By doing that you are trying to harm Haiku in every way you can. The fact
that you are even considering such things is worrying for any future
collaboration.
Can we safely keep using any of your code now, or willeit lead us into
more trouble?
It would be great if you could show more trust into the project, despite
innapropriate actions from some members (we all make mistakes). But you are
reacting with attacks, and this does not help me being reinsured thut
collaboration is somehow possible.
admit that it was not completely wrong either? What would you have done if
your commit access still worked when you found out about this? Would you
have reverted all your work directly?